Fair or foul: Matthew Futterman's piece pointing out that Sharon Lokedi wasn't in testing pool prior to NYC Marathon win

It's a fair point to note her absence from the testing pool, but it becomes an unfair article when there's no context, and blatant factual errors ("unknown"? no.).

Also, the "no comment from her agent" is just more smear. How do we know he wasn't on a plane when the messages for comment were sent, and the writer didn't wait more than two hours for a response?

I wouldn't dignify the question with a response. The agent did the right thing. This article is no different than an LRC post. Someone is looking for attention, stirs the pot, doesn't get their desired engagement, then proceeds to proclaim someone "probably guilty of something" because they didn't get attention and silence must mean "guilt".

She needs to start racing ASAP to be under the protection of USADA.

Writing that there was no comment isn't a smear, it's to let us know that the agent was contacted. If you put nothing, then the question is "why wasn't her agent contacted?".

You clearly didn't read the article very closely. The issue is she's in Flagstaff but is Kenyan and the way the system is set up Kenya is still responsible for testing her even when she's in the US. Obviously they have enough issues testing their athletes while they are actually in Kenya so I'm going to go out on a limb and say testing of Kenyan athletes in the US is close to non-existent.

This isn't her problem though, is she supposed to voluntarily offer to be tested because she isn't being tested? Really seems like the majors should fund testing all athletes in their elite field honestly.

1. Futterman is a million times the writer you are. His editors are also a million times better than those of this website. Your criticism of the tone is noted with context.

2. There have been far better known Kenyans (Betsy Saina, Sally Kipyego) who have come through the NCAA and haven't won a WMM. You only knew Lokedi before her NYC win because you follow collegiate running closely. Most running fans couldn't tell you who won the D1 10,000m for men or women in any given year. It's not like she had King Ches stature in college. She was good but certainly not Shalane Flanagan level as a collegian. That's why her best option was a marginal group with C-rate shoe brand sponsorship that few knew existed. Hell, even I thought Dark Sky was defunct until Kelati joined and that was the only name I remember being in that group. So yeah, to the majority of fans of the sport, she was definitely unknown. This "I knew her so she wasn't unknown" is silly.

Given the large number of Kenyan marathoners who have been caught doping recently, it is fair to be suspicious of a Kenyan with modest track PBs who surprisingly wins a world marathon major in their debut without being tested beforehand.

This.

And I’ll add; being out of the testing pool and pulling off a major win (just like the Burundi runner who won this years Monaco DL 3,000 m) is HIGHLY suspicious.

Haas was Houlihan's agent. Therefore, he is tainted and Lokedi is tainted by association. The article by Futterman should have mentioned this. Otherwise, I agree with rojo's points. On the flip side, I think it's fine that the article was written. An awful lot of marathon major winners have been dopers, and there's a great chance Lokedi is as well.

I have not read the article - but if the writer did not give the time that he reached out to Stephen Haas and the time the writer had for a deadline (e.g. emailing Stephen at 10 am for a deadline of 5 pm that night) - then it is unfair to assume that Stephen Haas intentionally ignored this writer's request for comment.

What a hit piece. Shame.

Kevin Beck loved it.

kevinbeck.substack.com

Running's pundits are pissed at The NYT for committing a rare instance of skeptical journalism

Kevin Beck

The Kenyan winner of a corrupt marathon wasn't drug-tested in advance. Despite half of Kenya recently testing positive, the whiny waddlers want this to be a non-story

Open link

I'm with Rojo, totally fair to talk about structural testing loopholes but not mentioning Lokedi's NCAA title is either a massive editorial oversight or a really slimy way to make her seem like less of an elite runner.

COVID disrupted a lot of out-of-competition testing back in 2020, was that NYT reporter writing articles bringing that up whenever there was a fast time by a US runner in those years? Doesn't look like it; a quick search of his twitter account shows he's never mentioned Shelby Houlihan at all. I know the NY Marathon draws a different level of press but stuff like that is why this feels like sour grapes.

Regarding point #2, you can see I've been on this site awhile and probably post daily or nearly daily for 12 years. I would say I'm pretty knowledgeable about the sport, and Sharon Lokedi was indeed an unknown to me. Pretty sure people that generally don't follow running or just very casually follow wouldn't know her.

The brojos have a million times knowledge of the sport. That is the actual argument here. Futterman and his editor weren’t able to catch that this was a nothing topic. The tone of the article was guilty until proven innocent. Although there is reason for suspicion given recent events, it’s not like she tried to avoid testing intentionally before the race. It was attacking her for something she had no control over. He was reaching for something that wasn’t there. We didn’t need a New York Times article about this.

The NY Times does have its share of trolls. Sad way to run a news publication.

Too bad his writing deteriorates with every new piece, the dude has lost it.

10x, more accurately. They persistently give testimony on being out-of-touch. Most runners reading the NYT wouldn’t recognize Lokedi’s name prior to Sunday.

Agreed, he’s speeding towards Unabomber level. Any possible entertainment there might be within is grown-over with shameless neurosis and blatant mental preening. It’s like watching madness develop in real time.